The Bible has many passages that prescribe rules for slavery, and in the New Testament commands slaves to obey their masters and affirms even the right to beat disobedient slaves. The Bible clearly communicates God's will for Christians and Jews to own slaves. This makes prohibition against owning slaves when it is a Christian or a Jew who is owning the slave and when the pattern of ownership follows biblical law, an unconstitutional attack on freedom of religion.

The First Amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The current law on slavery is a law that holds the standards and practices of established religions besides Judaism and Christianity to prevail when those other religions prohibit slavery. Effectively, Christians and Jews in this country are being collectively commanded to live according to the rules of other religions.

The Bible clearly sanctions slavery, and those Jews & Christians who feel they have heard the call of God to own slaves should be allowed to do so.

There are many great things that would come if Jews & Christians were granted their Constitutional right to own slaves within the rules of their respective faiths. Many people in impoverished nations would be given the opportunity to live in a more stable environment. Most would be seeing improvements in their everyday lifestyles.

1) Biblical lawsThere are many things the Bible advises Christians to practice, it promotes stuff like animal sacrifice, circumcision, promotes against masturbation, to not cut your own hair, that whores should be burnt to death, that a guy who cheats on his wife should be put to death ALONG with the girl, etc etc.

Point is, the Bible tells people to do a lot of crazy things that in modern society is just barbaric.... And repealing a Constitutional amendment to honor a single Biblical "tradition" that actually caused America to enter into a CIVIL WAR isnt exactly "for America's best interests"....

2) The Nature of Constitutional RightsThere are many, many rights or freedoms that clash with other rights or freedoms, and in a modern society we must pick and choose which rights triumph others from time to time.

Take the Supreme Court ruling regarding christian groups protesting at military funerals. This was a case of free speech against right to privacy (of burying one's kin) and after a while the SUpreme Court ruled almost unanimously in favor of free speech, even though the right to privacy stance was very valid.

The point here is, there are constitutional rights that conflict with one another and often it has to be decided which right triumphs the other, and in the case of Prohibiting the free exercise of a single religious tradition that many Christians did not follow vs basic human rights of millions of people............ Human rights and freedom wins....

3) Amendments are literally exceptions to the Constitution. An amendment is literally a change to the Constitution that according to the Constitution, should not be a law, but Congress and the President and the States all agree that it should be a law. Amendments are universally agreed changes/alterations made to the Constitution. The law that outlaws slavery and gives rights to former slaves (Amendments 13, 14, 15) are amendments, meaning they are in the Constitution. If you put these amendments against a single religious tradition to see which one triumphs the other, then the Amendments would win out (see round 2)

4) Do Christians even know that the Bible advocates slavery?Seriously, if your Christian did you actually know that the Bible endorses slavery? I sure as hell didnt, and im guessing there are many other Christians and Jews alike who dont either. On the other hand there are millions and millions of Americans, religious or not, who know that people are guaranteed basic human rights and that slavery should be outlawed.

5) "Many people in impoverished nations would be given the opportunity to live in a more stable environment. Most would be seeing improvements in their everyday lifestyles."Oh dear God please just drop this argument so that we can focus on the constitutionality of slavery and not start bickering over such an uninformed statement....

Perhaps then those other laws of the Bible should also be protected when Christians and for the Old Testament, the Jews are practicing them.

The first amendment does protect the free practice of religion.

Rebuttal #2:

As for contrasting rights. My opponent brings up a poor example the words "right to privacy" never appear in the Constitution. Hence it is understandable why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did.

Rebuttal #3:

When an amendment is meant to replace the effects of previous amendments, such as the 21st amendment it explicitly states that the amendment it is meant to outdo is repealed. There is no clause in the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendment that in any way even limits the 1st amendment. Since the 1st amendment was passed before they were and is given such a prominent position as 1st amendment it should be held to carry more weight and Christians and Jews should be allowed to have slaves.

Rebuttal #4:

No where in the Constitution does it contain the words "basic human rights", so saying that abolishing slavery is part of respecting basic human rights is a fallacy. Slavery should generally be prohibited under the 13th amendment, but because we also have the 1st amendment there should be religious exceptions.

Rebuttal #5:

Just because many Christians are unaware their Bible condones slavery does not negate the fact that their Bible condones slavery, and good Christians who are trying to learn more about what their religion really teaches might be interested in owning a slave.

Rebuttal #6:

How is it uninformed? The lifestyles of US slaves even back in the 1800s was better than the lifestyles of people living in Africa. Just a quick looking into how things are going over there with the widespread famine and disease shows that many of these people would be better off as slaves.

Argument 1:"Perhaps then those other laws of the Bible should also be protected when Christians and for the Old Testament"

The Pro argues that these following things SHOULD BE LAW1) Slavery2) Animal sacrifice3) Circumcision4) Burning whores to death5) Anything else that is ridiculous in the Bible

"The first amendment does protect the free practice of religion."Well the government already ruled that being the first amendment isnt good enough.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the Supreme Court ruled that any law that "unduly burdens the practice of religion" without a compelling interest would be unconstitutional.... Meaning that if a law was passed that limited the practice of religion and had a damn good reason to limit said practice of religion, is allowed.

That being said the outlawing of certain religious practices is legal if there is a good reason to outlaw them. 1) Slavery - outlawed since this is protected by other amendments2) Animal sacrifice - outlawed due to animal cruelty laws3) circumcision - not law due to the separation of church and state4) Burning whores to death - outlawed since thats murder hate crime

Argument 2:" "right to privacy" never appears in the Constitution"Amendment #9.....

Argument 3:"There is no clause in the 13th, 14th, or 15th amendment that in any way even limits the 1st amendment"The first amendment includes "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", this whole time you are arguing that slavery should be allowed because of the first amendment...........

13th amendment: Slavery is not allowed with the US. .........

So that limits the first amendment

Argument 4:"No where in the Constitution does it contain the words "basic human rights""

This is from the opening of the Declaration of Independence (existed before the Constitution)"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.""

Opening of the Constitution prior to the first amendment"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

(Notice how the Pro is using wordplay as his main arguments and sticking his head in the ground when addressing my other arguments)

"Since the 1st amendment was passed before they were and is given such a prominent position as 1st amendment it should be held to carry more weight and Christians and Jews should be allowed to have slaves."

Since it is established before the COnstitution was even written that all men are created equal, and that the Consitution advocates justice, welfare, and liberty for all people way before the first amendment, then by the Pro's own logic slavery must remain outlawed.....

Argument 5:If people dont know that the Bible condones slavery than that doesnt mean the government should alert them of it and then legalize it, that completely violates the separation of church and state....

Argument 6:" The lifestyles of US slaves even back in the 1800s was better than the lifestyles of people living in Africa."

Actions............................................................................... Slaves..................... Average AfricansPayment for work.................................................................... N................................... YForced to fight in wars......................................................Y (Civil War)....... Only in rare circumstancesTortured................................................................................ Y................ Only in rare circumstancesAll lived in poverty.................................................................. Y................................... NCivil rights............................................................................. N..................... Y for most of them Allowed to learn to read........................................................... N................................... YBought and sold..................................................................... Y................................... NAbducted from their homeland................................................. Y................................... NEndured life on slave ships...................................................... Y................................... NRight to vote.......................................................................... N.......................... Most of them

So tell me, how is slave life better than living in Africa? Africa isnt entirely Darfur, there are normal stable parts of it where people live just fine. (Egypt, South Africa, Morocco, Kenya, etc)

The First amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". For Congress to prohibit something that is a part of a religion even for the members of that religion then the members of that religion are effectively being placed under the rule of a law that respects the practices of religions that don't have that as their practice. You are effectively forcing Christians to follow the religious practices of religions that don't condone slavery, and that's wrong. Freedom of religion is the most basic and cherished freedom that we have in this country. To prohibit Christians from owning slaves is a violation against their freedom of religion, as it is for Jews whose teachings also condone the practice of slavery.

Con brings up animal sacrifice and circumcision as other things that would have to be protected freedom of religion for Jews and Christians, including animal sacrifice and circumcision. As it stands the Supreme Court has found animal sacrifice to be constitutionally protected in the case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. Circumcision is widely practiced in America already.

As for burning whores to death I'm talking about freedom of religion, not enforcement of religion. It is part of Christian and Jewish religion to own slaves, to sacrifice animals, and to circumcize. While it does talk about burning whores to death, the context of this is as a government-run function. For the government to impose a sentence of burning to death on all whores just because of Christianity or Judaism would be an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. Slavery on the other hand is brought up as a privately-run function that the Judeo-Christian God sanctions, and therefore for the sake of constitutional religious liberty we need to allow bonafide Jews and Christians to own slaves.

Argument #2:

There is no compelling state interest in banning slavery. People holding slaves does nothing to directly impact the stability of the state. In fact, allowing the sale and trade of slaves(within the rules of what ever religion a person is a part of that allows slavery) could open up a new market, spurring growth and investment. Laws against slavery are based entirely off of moral arguments, not any compelling state interest.

Argument #3:

Con claims the "right to privacy" is enumerated in the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I don't see the words "right to privacy" in there.

Argument #4:

It doesn't matter that the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. That just means that people should require a bonafide religious reason to own slaves. If the 13th amendment was meant to prohibit slavery regardless of the rights in the 1st amendment or any other amendment coming before it it would say so. There is precedent for this interpretation. The 21st amendment, legalizing alcohol contains a clause explicitly repealing the 18th amendment. The 13th contains no such clause for the 1st or any other preceding amendment, so we can assume the intent was that the 13th amendment would have less power than the preceding amendments.

Argument #5:

Con mentions the Declaration of Independence. I will first point out that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution, nor was that ever its purpose. Its purpose was to declare independence from Britain.

Second, even though it says "all men are created equal" this line was written in part by men who owned slaves. Clearly the intended interpretation is not anti-slavery. One can be a slave and still be "equal" in that the slave lives under the same laws as the master just that some of the laws may say things specific for the role of slave. Laws already have specific differences for people in the military. We do not say this goes against all men being created equal.

As for justice, welfare, and liberty. It is a huge injustice to deny Christians their religious liberty to own slaves. It can not be good for our nation's welfare if the 1st amendment is ignored. Con talks about justice, welfare, and liberty. But the real injustice is that Christians and Jews are being prevented from effectively following their own religious beliefs. This is bigotry and lacks respect for diversity. Even if we do not understand why Christianity and Judaism allow people to own slaves we should still be tolerant of this and allow them to follow their respective faiths in owning slaves.

Argument #6:

Con is focusing on mere details of lifestyle rather than lifestyle as a whole. Slaves, if we still had them today would have the advantages of running water and electricity and a roof over their heads. Many Africans don't have that. Lifestyle isn't about whether or not you are getting paid, it is about how life is generally.

It is a better lifestyle to be a slave who has everything he needs than a person who has almost nothing but is 'free'. Most Africans these days aren't really free, they are slaves to their environment and circumstances.

Vote Pro! Vote to restore religious liberty and to help promote some good in the lives of the poor of the world by affording them the opportunity to sell themselves as slaves to good Christian and Jewish families in the U.S. who want to take care of them.

1) "To prohibit Christians from owning slaves is a violation against their freedom of religion"I already showed how the Supreme Court disagrees with this statement after the Wisconsin v. Yoder case made it so that the US could create laws to limit the practice of religion if they had a good reason. Slavery being immoral, inhumane, and the cause of the Civil War is a good reason.

As for the other ridiculous laws the Pro thinks should be legal, "As it stands the Supreme Court has found animal sacrifice to be constitutionally protected in the case, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah."The Pro is misreading evidence since that case was in court not because of animal sacrifice, but because the state of Florida created a law that completely forbade it only after learning that one church practiced it

Basically, the law was repealed not because the Supreme Court legalized anmal sacrifice, but because the State of Florida made that law specifically towards one Church, and THAT was illegal. The US does not legalize animal sacrifice that the Bible condones.

Argument 2)"There is no compelling state interest in banning slavery. People holding slaves does nothing to directly impact the stability of the state"Slavery does effect the stability of states, ever heard of THE CIVIL WAR?!?!?

Argument 3)9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."Pro responded to this by saying "I don't see the words "right to privacy" in there."

Clearly the Pro cannot understand the meaning of words......... The 9th amendment says that the absence of rights specifically written in the Constitution does NOT mean those rights dont exist. It basically states that if its not in the Constitution it doesnt mean its not a right............... That includes the right to privacy.

Argument 4)"It doesn't matter that the 13th amendment prohibits slavery"It kind of does since you want to legalize something the Constitution says is illegal.....

" That just means that people should require a bonafide religious reason to own slaves"Ok then, provide a bonafide reason.......... Oh wait you cant......... Your sole argument for why people should own slaves is because the Bible says they should, thats not good enough.

Argument 5)Pro's response to the claim that all men are created Equal..." One can be a slave and still be "equal" in that the slave lives under the same laws as the master just that some of the laws may say things specific for the role of slave"Do you actually think about what your saying before you type it Pro?

"Con talks about justice, welfare, and liberty. But the real injustice is that Christians and Jews are being prevented from effectively following their own religious beliefs"Not being able to follow religious beliefs never caused a Civil War Pro............ Want to know the one thing that did though? SLAVERY

(By the way, how is not being able to practice ONE PART of a religion more unjustified then whipping slaves, making them your property, denying them the right to learn, the right to vote, the right to sue, the right to pursue happiness?)

Argument 6) "Most Africans these days aren't really free, they are slaves to their environment and circumstances."You know who else is a slave to their environment and circumstances? SLAVES. All of them! As for your claim that Africans arent really free, that is a biased, unfactually based claim.

All in all, the Pro seems to fail to take into account how slaves are actually treated, how bad slavery was to this country, and how the Constitution works. I provided evidence showing how even according to the Constitution itself forbids slavery being allowed and why there is a good reason slavery is outlawed. In response to these arguments the Pro stuck his head in the sand and said how the real injustice is that Jewish families arent allowed to keep Africans as pets....

My advice to voters, read my arguments, and then read the Pro's arguments. If your still undecided, read the Pro's arguments again......... Then vote Con ;D

Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for Con. Pro's position in indefensible. I think it is unlikely that Pro seriously supports slavery. In case he intended this as a humorous debate, he should have said so and inserted humor in his own arguments. Assuming that the intention was to create a funny debate, I would encourage MasturDbtor to try this debate again.

Reasons for voting decision: Con was almost snide enough for me to vote conduct to Pro. For instance, "Do you actually think about what your saying before you type it Pro?"
Con points out that the 13th amendment forbids slavery. That's a slam dunk. Pro claims that amendments overruling other amendments specifically say so, but Con again points out that the 13th forbids slavery, which is still a slam dunk.
Victory: Con

Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting debate and well done by both debaters. I feel that Pro fails on his BOP however as con is able to refute most of the major points. Both debaters should have used more sources, especially Pro, to establish biblical record regarding slavery via Christianity and Judaism. Ultimately, slavery being illegal (for the religious) has not been proven by Pro to be unconstitutional in this debate, so arguments go to Con.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.